Environmental Leader

I believe that global warming is certainly possible, given that the earth has warmed and cooled over the centuries. I am, however, skeptical about man being the primary cause. I am willing to do my part in conserving and protecting our resources in the ways that I can, but I am absolutely convinced that we are being taken advantage of by those who thrive on doomsday scenarios. Al Gore comes to mind. OF course, Al does have a monetary interest in all of this, to say nothing of his love of attention. People are beginning to lose interest because other, more reasoned voices are beginning to be heard over the clamor of the earth first crowd. Fanaticism wears thin over time.

Glenda | May 13th, 2008

Let’s change the whole conversation away from global warming to ocean death, increased calamity, and billions suffering and dying in misery. If it the developed world’s intention to let billions die so a few hundred thousand can sustainably await the rapture, let’s say so.

Will Duggan | May 13th, 2008

Deniers: 1

Guardians of the Goracle: 0

Mick | May 13th, 2008

The main reason groups want to deny global warming is they don’t like the possible consequence of action, which they have been told is a crippled economy. But we can cut energy costs and greenhouse pollution at the same time. I’m associated with a company called Recycled Energy Development, which converts waste heat into power and steam. That means more energy efficienct. And since 69% of our greenhouse emissions come from the production of power and heat (just 19% from cars) the only real way to tackle this is to produce power more efficiently. The reason more of this isn’t being done is the government gives monopoly protections to utilities, thus making it hard for cheaper, cleaner, efficient alternatives to emerge.

speakforthose | May 14th, 2008

We are losing sight of the real problem. The fact of the matter is that “The public has been misled on this issue by an unholy alliance of environmental scaremongers, funds-seeking academics, sensation-seeking media, vote-seeking politicians and profit-seeking vested interests.”
CO2 has nothing to do with climate change, but has a great deal to do with shifting huge amounts of dollars out of the average person’s pockets and into the pockets of “scaremongers, funds-seeking academics, sensation-seeking media, vote-seeking politicians and profit-seeking vested interests.”
Whether or not the Earth was warming wasn’t in much dispute at all. The bone of contention was whether or not it was being caused by mankind and whether CO2 was the cause. The so-called deniers merely started out saying that there wasn’t enough data to determine what was causing it. They were forced to play the heterodox because they were dealing with greedy, irrational, misanthropic people who weren’t the least bit interested in the data; they wanted action irrespective of the consequences or the truth.
Now that it appears that the data shows that the warming trend stopped in 1996 and we may be going into another cooling period they are even more irrational than before. Why; because this is all about the transfer of power and money and has nothing to do with saving the world. As Jacques Chirac noted, “this is the first step in global governance”.
We know factually that the world was substantially warmer 1000 year ago than it is today. The question that needs asked is this. Since it was so much warmer then; did all the terrible catastrophes they are predicting for today occur then? The answer is no! If it didn’t occur then; why would we think these catastrophes would occur today? We shouldn’t!

Rich | May 14th, 2008

The main reason groups want to deny Global Warming is that……temperatures have been downtrending since 1998.

Denying Global Warming ( with plenty of evidence to back yourself up), is about as difficult as denying that your dog can drive.

Randall S | May 18th, 2008